by Larik Sonfar

Created on: May 28, 2008   Last Updated: May 29, 2008

Violent revolution, by definition, fundamentally changes or attempts to fundamentally change an oppressive state. Oppression is the arbitrary exercise of power; and since arbitrary means without reason or purpose, oppression by definition violates the state's purpose.

Fulfillment of the state's purpose is necessary for the existence of the state to be justified. States and laws inherently limit human autonomy and implement coercion. Such coercion can only be justified if there is some justification, i.e. purpose to the coercion. At the point where such coercion fails its purpose, e.g. oppression, then it becomes necessary for the people to remove such forces of coercion.

Oppression failing to fulfill the government's purpose has two impacts. First, because violent revolution overthrows an oppressive government, it increases the government's fulfillment of purpose. Second, conversely, not resisting oppression increases oppression. The people of a state act as the state's final check since all other checks are made by the state itself. For example, even though courts act as a check on the government's policies, the courts are also part of the government and are thus biased. People are the final check since their motives will always be their own interests, which is the final purpose of the government. If the people do not revoke the state when oppression arises, the state will assume that the final check has failed, and feel free to increase their oppressiveness. This cycle continues since with each new level of oppression the people's tolerance is tested again. Thus oppression will turn into an infinite regression where the oppression continuously gets worse, meaning not revolting will take the government infinitely away from fulfilling its purpose and is thus the worst possible scenario.

Violent revolution can be the only way to solve political oppression for two reasons. First, on the buildup to oppression, non-violent means would already have been exhausted. Basically since oppression can't be just a few isolated instances of arbitrary state action but must be "systematic", oppression would have had to build up slowly over time. In this time, people would have tried the normal means of change such as political discourse and later peaceful protest. Furthermore, because people are self interested they will choose courses of action that involve less risk before resorting to more risky measures such as violence.

Second, non-violence will simply be quashed by government force. Governments want to preserve their own power, especially oppressive governments. If this weren't the case, they would never have been in power in the first place. Thus they will respond using any means necessary to any action threatening their power.

Thus, it is man's right as well as his duty to violently revolt in the face of injustice and oppression.

Learn more about this author, Larik Sonfar.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.